Scan GTM Hiring Signals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: requires APIFY_TOKEN, consumes Apify credits, and supports specific ATS platforms. No contradictions with annotations. The description enriches transparency by specifying auth and cost implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential information (purpose, output, platforms, requirements). Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by specifying the output format (Clay-ready flat JSON). It also covers supported platforms, auth requirements, and credit consumption. For a scanning tool with 3 parameters and clear annotations, the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions, though it reinforces the ATS platform support. No additional parameter semantics or examples are provided that aren't already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool scans company career pages for GTM hiring activity, specifying the types of jobs (sales, marketing, revenue operations) and supported ATS platforms (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby). Output format is explicitly described as Clay-ready flat JSON. With no sibling tools, differentiation is unnecessary, and the purpose is fully conveyed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides explicit context on when to use (detecting GTM hiring signals) and operational requirements (requires APIFY_TOKEN, consumes credits). While no alternative tools are listed (siblings are absent), the description clearly implies the use case and prerequisites, making the guidance adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.